JUDGMENT : Mr. M. Vinaya Keerthy, Adv., for Appellants Mr. A.S. Mahesha, Adv., for Respondents The writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, Mr. M.S. Puttaraju and Mr. H.M. Muniraju, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge on 9102014 dismissing their writ petitions. 2. The appellants-petitioners sought their preference in the appointment on the post of Bill Collector or Tax Collector which was notified by the respondent No.1 BK Halli Grama Panchayat, vide notification, Annexure-S, dated 20-7-2013. In which, said Grama Panchayat sought to appoint the Tax Collector and prescribed that the candidate should be minimum a Degree Holder and having experience in computer operations. 3. The appellants did not possess the said requisite qualifications and therefore, they were not eligible for the said post. 4. In the selection process, the private respondents No.3 and 4, namely Mr. B.M. Shivakumar and Mr. K. Nagaraja respectively were selected. As per the guidelines in Official Memorandum of the State Government vide Annexure-N dated 4-1-2008, the preference for filling up the vacant post of Tax Collector in Grama Panchayat should be filled from amongst the other existing staff of the Panchayat, namely Waterman/Pump Mechanic/Attender, who have put in minimum five-years of service and have passed S.S.L.C. and also possess exemplary character and conduct and preference should be given to those staff, who possess higher educational qualification and are well versed in computer usage. 5. In such a case, if no candidates are available for the said vacant posts and if the Grama Panchayat desires, the appointment process can be initiated by publishing the vacancy particulars in the local daily newspaper, after taking a decision in that regard. While undertaking the selection process, in pursuance of the notification, Annexure-S, dated 2072013, the respondent No.1 appointed private respondents No.3 and 4. 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the ground that even as per the petitioners, they were recruited dehors the Recruitment Rules and discharged their duties as Waterman and not as Bill Collectors and further, they did not respond to the Notification inviting applications for filling up of the post of Tax Collectors and therefore, they cannot be said to be aggrieved with the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that the Government has not approved the said selections even by now and the appellants will be illegally deprived of their right, since they are already working as Waterman. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the present appeal because to prescribe a particular qualification for the post of Tax Collector and Bill Collector, it lies discretion on the Respondent No.1 – Grama Panchayat. The guidelines issued by the State Government and as relied upon by the appellants that preference may be given to Waterman/Pump Mechanic/Attender having the continuous experience and higher qualification is not of binding character and it does not prohibit the qualification of a Degree as the minimum qualification for appointment on the said post of Bill Collectors. 9. Admittedly, the appellants do not possess the said educational qualification and not having applied for the said post, they cannot challenge the selection of duly selected respondents No.3 and 4 by way of writ jurisdiction or Intra-Court appeal. We do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the respondents for their information. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2017 for impleading respondents No.5 and 6 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2017 is also dismissed.